![]() | Richard Riot has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 17, 2011, March 17, 2015, March 17, 2018, and March 17, 2022. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
___ Well fans are better off not caring so much about their teams if they're going to do what those people did. $500,000 damage to the neighbourhood? Looting stores within a 15 block radius? Whether or not the ruling was unfair, the residents in that community were NOT responsible for what the NHL officials decided. 24.65.136.162 ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
... don't edit at all. The following is the verbatim summary of the official inquiry into the incident, submitted at the March 16, 1955, hearing:
"Around the 14:00 of the third period when Boston was a man short, the Canadien goalkeeper was removed in favour of a sixth forward. Richard skated past Laycoe who high-sticked him on the head. Referee Udvari signalled a penalty to Laycoe but permitted play to continue as Canadiens were still in possession of the puck. Richard skated around the Boston goal and almost to the blueline when the whistle blew. Richard rubbed his hand on his head and indicated to the referee that he had been injured. Suddenly he skated towards Laycoe, who had dropped his stick and gloves, and swinging his stick up with both hands he struck Laycoe a blow on shoulder and face. The linesmen grabbed the two players and Richard's stick was taken away from him. Richard broke away from linesman Thompson and picking up a loose stick again attacked Laycoe, striking him over the back ahd breaking the stick. The linesman seized Richard but he gort away and seizing another stick, attacked Laycoe for the third time hitting him on the back. Linesman Thompson seized Richard once more and forcing him to the ice held him there until a Canadien player pushed Thompson away and Richard regained his feet. Richard then struck Thompson two hard blows in the face which raised a swelling. Richard was finally brought under control and taken to the first aid room where several stitches were required to close a cut on the side of his head. Referee Udvari gave Richard a match penalty for deliberately injuring Laycoe and Laycoe was given a major penalty. Laycoe was ordered to take his place on the penalty bench and when he failed to do so, the referee gave him a ten-minute misconduct penalty. Laycoe claimed that he had been hit first on the glasses that he wore and that he retaliated with the high stick. Richard said he thought linesman Thompson was one of the Boston players."
- Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol III., Charles Coleman, p. 252-253
There's revisionist history, and there are downright lies, and that's what was put in the article. Ravenswing 05:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried reading this article and it used a lot of hockey terms I dont know the meaning to. It also uses nicknames of which i have no idea who it is reffering to. Someone needs to fix this article so that when someone reads it, if they have no experience with hockey knows what it is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.1.247 ( talk) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Maxim and I've been sparring over the posted text from the press release Clarence Campbell made after the Richard hearing. In an ongoing peer review of the article, Maxim and another editor claim the quote to be a WP:COPYVIO violation. Yet it comes from an official NHL press release on the matter, which is not a copyright violation. In his most recent reversion, Maxim uses the edit summary "WP policy is to assume a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise." Quite aside from the absurdity of attempting to "prove" a negative, this is not at all the case. WP:COPYRIGHT holds that users do not have to prove, generally, that items are not under copyright. That aside, Maxim's issue (as expressed in the peer review) is that he doesn't like the length of the quote. So stipulated, but no one else had had a problem with it in the four years that quote has been in the article. It is a valid quote, issued as part of a press statement, dealing with the most notable disciplinary case in hockey history, and matches well with Richard's own public statement on the issue, which is likewise printed in its entirety and has been for several years. Ravenswing 03:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked for other opinions here. Maxim (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to concede here that my opinion is in a minority... so: the quote might as well be put back in, but from a purely stylistic perspective, outside of WP:NFC guidelines, it would be nice if the quote were to be shortened, or at least that it wouldn't take up so much of the section. Maxim (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
After the hearing NHL president Clarence Campbell made the following statement:
I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the attack on Laycoe was not only deliberate but persisted in the face of all authority and that the referee acted with proper judgment in accordance with the rules in awarding a match penalty. I am also satisfied that Richard did not strike linesman Thompson as a result of a mistake or accident as suggested. There is singularly little conflict in the evidence as to important relevant facts. Assistance can also be obtained from an incident that occurred less than three months ago in which the pattern of conduct of Richard was almost identical, including his constant resort to the recovery of his stick to pursue his opponent, as well as flouting the authority of and striking officials. [1]
Due to Richard's record of previous violent incidents, Campbell suspended him for the rest of regular season and all of the playoffs. He further justified the actions by stating that previous incidents were treated more leniently because they did not result in serious injuries to the opposing player. [1] The suspension—the longest ever handed out by Campbell—was considered by many in Montreal to be unjust and severe. No sooner had the judgment been handed out that the NHL office (then in Montreal) was deluged with calls from enraged fans. [2]
References
I do not believe that this edit implies that Richard provoked the riot. The current caption is somewhat circular and not very illuminating; it is more useful to give an indication of why the riot is known as the Richard riot. I prefer an alternate wording that helps shed some light on the situation. Any suggestions? Isaac Lin ( talk) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Clarence Campbell Stanley Cup 1957.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Richard Riot. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Can someone with access to the sources for the sentence in question examine if the terms majority and minority were being used in context of Quebec or Canada? isaacl ( talk) 20:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Another issue to ponder: the terms "French Canadian" and "English Canadian" seem a little grotty today. In one sense they're inaccurate; for example, one might be led to assume that "English" Canadians are from England, or at least of English descent, whereas in fact that's a laughable assumption. (Clarence Campbell, to name one, was a Scottish Canadian, but somehow also an "English Canadian" in the article.) The same contradictions plague the term "French" Canadian. They also just sound like something my grandparents would say. Current style is "francophone" and "anglophone" - terms that cut to the chase and avoid irrelevant assumptions. Perhaps we should update those terms in the article. Laodah 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | Richard Riot has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on March 17, 2011, March 17, 2015, March 17, 2018, and March 17, 2022. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
___ Well fans are better off not caring so much about their teams if they're going to do what those people did. $500,000 damage to the neighbourhood? Looting stores within a 15 block radius? Whether or not the ruling was unfair, the residents in that community were NOT responsible for what the NHL officials decided. 24.65.136.162 ( talk) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
... don't edit at all. The following is the verbatim summary of the official inquiry into the incident, submitted at the March 16, 1955, hearing:
"Around the 14:00 of the third period when Boston was a man short, the Canadien goalkeeper was removed in favour of a sixth forward. Richard skated past Laycoe who high-sticked him on the head. Referee Udvari signalled a penalty to Laycoe but permitted play to continue as Canadiens were still in possession of the puck. Richard skated around the Boston goal and almost to the blueline when the whistle blew. Richard rubbed his hand on his head and indicated to the referee that he had been injured. Suddenly he skated towards Laycoe, who had dropped his stick and gloves, and swinging his stick up with both hands he struck Laycoe a blow on shoulder and face. The linesmen grabbed the two players and Richard's stick was taken away from him. Richard broke away from linesman Thompson and picking up a loose stick again attacked Laycoe, striking him over the back ahd breaking the stick. The linesman seized Richard but he gort away and seizing another stick, attacked Laycoe for the third time hitting him on the back. Linesman Thompson seized Richard once more and forcing him to the ice held him there until a Canadien player pushed Thompson away and Richard regained his feet. Richard then struck Thompson two hard blows in the face which raised a swelling. Richard was finally brought under control and taken to the first aid room where several stitches were required to close a cut on the side of his head. Referee Udvari gave Richard a match penalty for deliberately injuring Laycoe and Laycoe was given a major penalty. Laycoe was ordered to take his place on the penalty bench and when he failed to do so, the referee gave him a ten-minute misconduct penalty. Laycoe claimed that he had been hit first on the glasses that he wore and that he retaliated with the high stick. Richard said he thought linesman Thompson was one of the Boston players."
- Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol III., Charles Coleman, p. 252-253
There's revisionist history, and there are downright lies, and that's what was put in the article. Ravenswing 05:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I tried reading this article and it used a lot of hockey terms I dont know the meaning to. It also uses nicknames of which i have no idea who it is reffering to. Someone needs to fix this article so that when someone reads it, if they have no experience with hockey knows what it is talking about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.1.247 ( talk) 06:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Maxim and I've been sparring over the posted text from the press release Clarence Campbell made after the Richard hearing. In an ongoing peer review of the article, Maxim and another editor claim the quote to be a WP:COPYVIO violation. Yet it comes from an official NHL press release on the matter, which is not a copyright violation. In his most recent reversion, Maxim uses the edit summary "WP policy is to assume a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise." Quite aside from the absurdity of attempting to "prove" a negative, this is not at all the case. WP:COPYRIGHT holds that users do not have to prove, generally, that items are not under copyright. That aside, Maxim's issue (as expressed in the peer review) is that he doesn't like the length of the quote. So stipulated, but no one else had had a problem with it in the four years that quote has been in the article. It is a valid quote, issued as part of a press statement, dealing with the most notable disciplinary case in hockey history, and matches well with Richard's own public statement on the issue, which is likewise printed in its entirety and has been for several years. Ravenswing 03:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I asked for other opinions here. Maxim (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to concede here that my opinion is in a minority... so: the quote might as well be put back in, but from a purely stylistic perspective, outside of WP:NFC guidelines, it would be nice if the quote were to be shortened, or at least that it wouldn't take up so much of the section. Maxim (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
After the hearing NHL president Clarence Campbell made the following statement:
I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the attack on Laycoe was not only deliberate but persisted in the face of all authority and that the referee acted with proper judgment in accordance with the rules in awarding a match penalty. I am also satisfied that Richard did not strike linesman Thompson as a result of a mistake or accident as suggested. There is singularly little conflict in the evidence as to important relevant facts. Assistance can also be obtained from an incident that occurred less than three months ago in which the pattern of conduct of Richard was almost identical, including his constant resort to the recovery of his stick to pursue his opponent, as well as flouting the authority of and striking officials. [1]
Due to Richard's record of previous violent incidents, Campbell suspended him for the rest of regular season and all of the playoffs. He further justified the actions by stating that previous incidents were treated more leniently because they did not result in serious injuries to the opposing player. [1] The suspension—the longest ever handed out by Campbell—was considered by many in Montreal to be unjust and severe. No sooner had the judgment been handed out that the NHL office (then in Montreal) was deluged with calls from enraged fans. [2]
References
I do not believe that this edit implies that Richard provoked the riot. The current caption is somewhat circular and not very illuminating; it is more useful to give an indication of why the riot is known as the Richard riot. I prefer an alternate wording that helps shed some light on the situation. Any suggestions? Isaac Lin ( talk) 02:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Clarence Campbell Stanley Cup 1957.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Richard Riot. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: Can someone with access to the sources for the sentence in question examine if the terms majority and minority were being used in context of Quebec or Canada? isaacl ( talk) 20:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Another issue to ponder: the terms "French Canadian" and "English Canadian" seem a little grotty today. In one sense they're inaccurate; for example, one might be led to assume that "English" Canadians are from England, or at least of English descent, whereas in fact that's a laughable assumption. (Clarence Campbell, to name one, was a Scottish Canadian, but somehow also an "English Canadian" in the article.) The same contradictions plague the term "French" Canadian. They also just sound like something my grandparents would say. Current style is "francophone" and "anglophone" - terms that cut to the chase and avoid irrelevant assumptions. Perhaps we should update those terms in the article. Laodah 19:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)